https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272915 The court found the agreements of 1901 and 1905 valid and binding on the plaintiff Company. The decree nisi of 1904 was not considered res judicata, and defendant No. 1 was mandated to account as a mortgagee in possession. Ownership of the second and third mortgages was established in favor of defendant No. 1, ruling against the Company's claim. en-us Thu, 22 Dec 1910 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 May 2018 15:30:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272915 The court found the agreements of 1901 and 1905 valid and binding on the plaintiff Company. The decree nisi of 1904 was not considered res judicata, and defendant No. 1 was mandated to account as a mortgagee in possession. Ownership of the second and third mortgages was established in favor of defendant No. 1, ruling against the Company's claim. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 22 Dec 1910 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272915